doubleo Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 10 hours ago, cookeh said: Connecting the dots.. We're short of a striker Rodgers has talked about how a lot of the younger players will be going out on loan to the Championship and League One to gain experience We just played Leicester Monk and Rodgers are mates So.. would you welcome Hirst back if he came on loan? Barking up the wrong tree mate - It’s Vardy - but keep it to thi sen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 No, aside from the fact the hype was overrated, I never want to see him in a Wednesday shirt. Well and truly burned bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poite Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 How would he add or improve anything? Other than increasing our number of stickers by one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 I wouldn't care. I doubt DC would have it though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Claw Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 Fik right off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelcityowlsfan Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 I can’t see this happening at all. Especially given how he left the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwë Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 We are so obsessed with ex-players, even ones that didn't actually do anything for us. Hirst played one league game for us I believe , he spent a year at a Belgian second division, whacking in three goals. I'm not saying he's not going to make it big, he's certainly closer to success right now than he ever has been, but he's not there now. We developed Hirst from a young age for the benefit of others, even third parties going out of their way to avoid paying any real dues to Wednesday. He signed for OH Leuven only because he knew in advance that he'd eventually be signing for Leicester City. He knew this method was being used to stop Leicester paying reasonable money to Wednesday. Wednesday could have handled it better (ie, sold him), but Hirst has gone out of his way to make sure Wednesday don't benefit from the time and money spent on his own development. He's not a player that is going to be getting regular first team football in the PL, I'm not sure he's realistically ready for a full season in the Championship. I'd find it an incredible ********-take if we were to take him back on loan to allow him further development for someone else's benefit. What would Wednesday get out of this? A unproven risk that has taken the ******** out of us previously. If we are going to take risks, that's fine and even great, I look forward to it. But let's benefit from a risk if we get it right, instead of lining the pockets of others. These "maybe we've made up with LCFC" posts are embarrassing and cringeworthy. fizz Hirst, fizz Leicester City. 2 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 It’s 30 years ago since his dad was the last player to score 20 or more goals at this level for us. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurujuan Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, Manwë said: We are so obsessed with ex-players, even ones that didn't actually do anything for us. Hirst played one league game for us I believe , he spent a year at a Belgian second division, whacking in three goals. I'm not saying he's not going to make it big, he's certainly closer to success right now than he ever has been, but he's not there now. We developed Hirst from a young age for the benefit of others, even third parties going out of their way to avoid paying any real dues to Wednesday. He signed for OH Leuven only because he knew in advance that he'd eventually be signing for Leicester City. He knew this method was being used to stop Leicester paying reasonable money to Wednesday. Wednesday could have handled it better (ie, sold him), but Hirst has gone out of his way to make sure Wednesday don't benefit from the time and money spent on his own development. He's not a player that is going to be getting regular first team football in the PL, I'm not sure he's realistically ready for a full season in the Championship. I'd find it an incredible ********-take if we were to take him back on loan to allow him further development for someone else's benefit. What would Wednesday get out of this? A unproven risk that has taken the ******** out of us previously. If we are going to take risks, that's fine and even great, I look forward to it. But let's benefit from a risk if we get it right, instead of lining the pockets of others. These "maybe we've made up with LCFC" posts are embarrassing and cringeworthy. fizz Hirst, fizz Leicester City. Same with most young loan signings though, you bring a player in because he offers something you don’t have. If he continues to improve, you benefit in the short term, but his parent club will benefit in the longer term. In truth, we should have a young player like George Hirst, but we don’t . If we bring in a target man, and he continues to be integral to the way we play, then we will need a young understudy. We can’t afford to have a Fletcher, and a Wickham just in case of injury. As I said, we should have that type of back up player already amongst our own youngsters, but we don’t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthefish2002 Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 Young Premiership forward player with a lot to prove is just sort of player we would welcome into the club on loan. But too much bad blood with the way he left the club for it to be George Hirst sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorian gray Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 11 hours ago, cookeh said: Connecting the dots.. We're short of a striker Rodgers has talked about how a lot of the younger players will be going out on loan to the Championship and League One to gain experience We just played Leicester Monk and Rodgers are mates So.. would you welcome Hirst back if he came on loan? does the turnstyle man confiscate crossbows? once you s**t on wednesday, you've done for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
September65 Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 We need a proven leader of the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shezzas left peg Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) When he left it was clear he wasn't ready for championship football. He hardly improved his reputation or made a mark in Belgium. Personally I'd be looking at someone on the periphory or close to breaking into the first team needing games and experience, I just don't think he's up to championship standards yet. Edited September 2, 2020 by shezzas left peg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch McLovin Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 Chairman wouldnt have it. Some fans wouldnt have it. If he wasnt called Hirst would he potentially be a good signing..... Yes. Is he better than what we have.... Yes. Im in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorian gray Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 54 minutes ago, gurujuan said: Same with most young loan signings though, you bring a player in because he offers something you don’t have. If he continues to improve, you benefit in the short term, but his parent club will benefit in the longer term. In truth, we should have a young player like George Hirst, but we don’t . If we bring in a target man, and he continues to be integral to the way we play, then we will need a young understudy. We can’t afford to have a Fletcher, and a Wickham just in case of injury. As I said, we should have that type of back up player already amongst our own youngsters, but we don’t i can see your reasoning, but are better not available elsewhere, and not just young hirst? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wilyfox Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 Have to say no on principle. Don't know what was said between Chansiri & the Hirst camp, but his transfer to Belgium was a definite move to swindle the club. The thought of DC taking him back, paying his wages, and continue developing the player for Leicester's gain... has to be a concrete no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shezzas left peg Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said: Chairman wouldnt have it. Some fans wouldnt have it. If he wasnt called Hirst would he potentially be a good signing..... Yes. Is he better than what we have.... Yes. Im in. I've no animosity or hate against the lad, they saw an opportunity to hopefully better his career, maybe senior didn't want him to miss out like David did with man utd. I've just seen or heard nothing that implies he's capable of holding a first choice slot at championship level yet. It's a no from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch McLovin Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 Just now, shezzas left peg said: I've no animosity or hate against the lad, they saw an opportunity to hopefully better his career, maybe senior didn't want him to miss out like David did with man utd. I've just seen or heard nothing that implies he's capable of holding a first choice slot at championship level yet. It's a no from me. Agree on the first part. Secondly the Belgian thing didnt work, but prior to that he was banging them in at youth level for us. Since returning to Leicester Under 23's he has done the same earning a first team chance at the end of last season. With what we have been looking at this summer this is the type of player were after, and if he didnt have history i am sure we'd be in for him. Or at least looked at him. That said, if he could hold down a slot at championship level is a question i cant answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Manwë said: We are so obsessed with ex-players, even ones that didn't actually do anything for us. Hirst played one league game for us I believe , he spent a year at a Belgian second division, whacking in three goals. I'm not saying he's not going to make it big, he's certainly closer to success right now than he ever has been, but he's not there now. We developed Hirst from a young age for the benefit of others, even third parties going out of their way to avoid paying any real dues to Wednesday. He signed for OH Leuven only because he knew in advance that he'd eventually be signing for Leicester City. He knew this method was being used to stop Leicester paying reasonable money to Wednesday. Wednesday could have handled it better (ie, sold him), but Hirst has gone out of his way to make sure Wednesday don't benefit from the time and money spent on his own development. He's not a player that is going to be getting regular first team football in the PL, I'm not sure he's realistically ready for a full season in the Championship. I'd find it an incredible ********-take if we were to take him back on loan to allow him further development for someone else's benefit. What would Wednesday get out of this? A unproven risk that has taken the ******** out of us previously. If we are going to take risks, that's fine and even great, I look forward to it. But let's benefit from a risk if we get it right, instead of lining the pockets of others. These "maybe we've made up with LCFC" posts are embarrassing and cringeworthy. fizz Hirst, fizz Leicester City. So isn't that the same as any loan deal for a young Premier League player? I've no idea if he's good enough, but if he is then the only ones obsessed with ex-players are the ones saying don't sign him because of the history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MallorcaOwl Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 Why do we have this obsession with the son of a great footballer, he played one PL game for us. Played for a relatively unknown Belgium team, moved to Leicester City, and has pulled no trees up with them. If he had been Atde Nuhiu's son we would have hounded him out. His Dad was a great player for us, he is an average footballer who will probably make a living in football but not at the highest level. We shoul move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now